| Citation(s) |
|---|
| SLG 1967 (2019) 126 SLD 1967 (2019) 125 YLR 2006 |
Islamabad High Court
Murder Reference No. 2 of 2015 and Jail Appeal No. 29 of 2015, decision Dated: 13-05-2019. Hearing Dated: 06-02-2019.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Barrister Mirza Shahzad Akbar
Respondent(s) by: Malik Awais Haider
Murder Reference No. 2 of 2015 and Jail Appeal No. 29 of 2015, decision Dated: 13-05-2019. Hearing Dated: 06-02-2019.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Barrister Mirza Shahzad Akbar
Respondent(s) by: Malik Awais Haider
THE STATE
VS
ZAFAR ALI
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(a)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 164,265D,265-E,544A
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265-D & 265-E---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Conviction at the time of framing of charge---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of employee of the complainant--- Accused-appellant pleaded guilty in response to the charge framed by the Trial Court---Accused filed application wherein he admitted the murder of deceased---Trial Court recorded the statement of accused on the day when charge was framed---Trial Court certified that the confession made by the accused was voluntary---On the same date, Trial Court convicted the accused and handed down the sentence of capital punishment---Admittedly, no evidence was recorded, in the present case, and the Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused solely because he had pleaded guilty in response to the charge---Reading of Ss.265-D & 265-E, Cr.P.C. together showed that the satisfaction of the Trial Court that the plea of guilt had been made voluntarily was implicit therein---Trial Court had shown haste in handing down the conviction and had not observed due care and caution required to ensure a fair trial and meeting of requirements of safe administration of justice---Trial Court did not exercise its discretion under subsection (2) of S.265-E, Cr.P.C. in accordance with the principles of safe administration of justice---Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for de novo trial. Imran Ali v. The State 2018 SCMR 1372 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 265-D & 265-E---Plea of accused at the time of framing of charge---Scope---High Court observed that great care and caution were required in handing down a conviction leading to the sentence of death in cases where an accused pleaded guilty to a charge---Trial Court was to observe all the possible precautionary measures and provide sufficient opportunity to the accused taking the plea of guilty in order to be certain that it was voluntary and free from any influence whatsoever. Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713 rel. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492